Cocoon 2.1.x then. That sounds like a more productive approach. :-)
If they fire up their flak, I'll retaliate by ranting about Maven. Hehe.
On 22.09.2006 15:50:50 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Added myself. The Cocoon Serializer is a good idea, IF!!! Maven is kind
> > with me this time. ;-)...
> I might get some flak from the Cocoon team for saying this, but I
> think a FOP trunk serializer would be good for Cocoon 2.1.x as well
> (the 2.1 build does not use Maven, it's only 2.2 which uses Maven).
> Many people still use Cocoon 2.1, and this is especially true of
> people who use it "only" for publishing purposes, IMHO.